Length of .44 240 Grain LSWC?

[TheTinMan]

Could a couple of you measure the length of a 240 grain lead semi-wadcutter bullet for .44 for me?

I have over 2,000 .240 grain lead “truncated cone bevel base” bullets that I bought from Bob Palermo at Penn bullets during the Obama shortages. Bob sadly is long gone. I loaded up some .44 Magnums with AA #7 and the velocities I got were significantly higher than AA/Western Powders data for the same barrel length. COAL with the case mouth where it should be in the crimp groove is virtually identical to what I see for the 240 grain LSWC bullets in the load data. The only thing I can figure out is that the bullet must go further down into the case, reducing interior volume.

I have even more 158 grain .38 LSWC and .45-70 Penn bullets but worked up loads for them back when I stockpiled.

Thanks in advance if you can help out.

 

[SGT ROCK 11B]

C.O.L. in 44 Magnum brass 1.605 inch

C.O.L. in 44 Special brass 1.475 inch

RCBS #12

 

[Yendor357]

Using a chronograph is an eye opener, isn’t it?

I doubt it’s anything to worry about.

What numbers are you getting?

 

[pokey074]

.44 cal 240gr LSWC is ~0.732”

 

[Forrest r]

My mihec 256 mold (h&g 503 copy) is .770"

 

[Nightowl]

Just for kicks, I headed to the basement to do some measurements. First up is my cast bullets from a Lyman mold 429421, to me the gold standard in the .44 Magnum and three other casters bullets, as follows.

429421 Length .783. From bottom of crimping band to tip is .444, seating depth is the difference: .339

Lane Bullets Length .715. From bottom of crimping band to tip is .341, seating depth is the difference: .374

MBC Length is .728. From bottom of crimping band to tip is .344, seating depth is the difference: .384

Stateline Bullets length is .770. From bottom of crimping band to tip is .451, seating depth is the difference: .319

So, to summarize, the amount of bullet in the case after seating, varies for each bullet: .339, .374, .384, and .319! The largest difference between these bullets is .065. Will that make a significant difference in velocity with the same load? No idea here!

I appears there is some difference in different makers molds, all advertised as Keith style bullets.

 

[TheTinMan]

Thank you very much gentlemen!

Penn 240 grain lead truncated cone/bevel base:
Length 0.725”
Base to deepest part of crimp groove 0.400”
COAL of 1.558” less case length => 0.408”

MBC is the specific bullet the AA data cites, so mine is taking up ~0.016” more of the case. Bullet specified was MCB…

The differences in length below the crimp groove don’t seem like enough to explain velocities of 175 fps over book with a 1/4” shorter barrel.

Using a chronograph is an eye opener, isn’t it?

I doubt it’s anything to worry about.

What numbers are you getting?

AA #7 Western Powders data for .44 Magnum, 8.275” barrel, CCI 350 primer, MBC 240 grain LSWC, COAL 1.560”
start 14.7 grains @ 1,180
max 16.3 grains @ 1,341
(Hodgdon shows the exact same data on their site although it is hard to find)

My results out of 8” Dan Wesson, Winchester LRP LPP, Penn 240 grain lead truncated cone/bevel base, COAL 1.558” (set by crimp groove)
14.7 grains @ 1,355 5-shot ES 39
15.0 grains @ 1,381 5-shot ES 27

Marlin 1894 Trapper (16.1” barrel) less than 200 fps higher. I had trouble getting the LabRadar to catch the rifle velocities in the 1,550 range.

I want to get and learn how to use QucikLoad for some rifle load development. Maybe my first project will be explaining this.

 

[Chuck Edwards]

A couple of thoughts...

You might have a "fast" gun while the load manual folks had a "slow" one. IIRC, you could adjust the barrel/cylinder gap on the DWs, and having a tighter one would increase velocity.

There might be more bearing surface on the LTC bullets you're using. This could increase the friction between the bullet and the bore and cause the powder to burn more efficiently and maybe result in increased velocity.

It might be caused by a difference between lots of powder, though that's a pretty big difference.

All of the above is just spitballing.

If the loads you've tried are accurate, and the velocity is acceptable, I'd just go with them and not worry about it.

 

[TheTinMan]

A couple of thoughts...

You might have a "fast" gun while the load manual folks had a "slow" one. IIRC, you could adjust the barrel/cylinder gap on the DWs, and having a tighter one would increase velocity.

There might be more bearing surface on the LTC bullets you're using. This could increase the friction between the bullet and the bore and cause the powder to burn more efficiently and maybe result in increased velocity.

It might be caused by a difference between lots of powder, though that's a pretty big difference.

All of the above is just spitballing.

If the loads you've tried are accurate, and the velocity is acceptable, I'd just go with them and not worry about it.

You are correct about adjusting the cylinder gap on Dan Wesson revolvers. Mine is exactly 0.006” as specified by DW.

My goal in this exercise is to produce a load with rifle muzzle velocity about 1,500 fps that also is accurate in the revolver. The only reason for my velocity limit is that these lead bullets do not have a gas check.

When I go to Hodgdon’s data and input .44 Magnum rifle 240 grains, the only powder I have shown for a 240 grain LSWC is W-231 with a maximum velocity of 1,427 out of a 20” barrel. For some reason that seems like a silly powder to put in .44 Magnum, but that’s probably what I will try next.

I really wish I hadn’t bought so many of these bullets…. I know they’d be great in the revolver with AA #9 and/or 2400 (both of which I have).

 

[STORMINORMAN]

Just a question: why so hot?

The DoubleTap 240gr LSWC is rated at 1,455 fps out of a 7.5" barrel. Buffalo Bore has several heavier & HOTTER loads, but what's the intended application? Jus' askin'?

Cheers!

 

[mtgianni]

Just for kicks, I headed to the basement to do some measurements. First up is my cast bullets from a Lyman mold 429421, to me the gold standard in the .44 Magnum and three other casters bullets, as follows.

429421 Length .783. From bottom of crimping band to tip is .444, seating depth is the difference: .339

Lane Bullets Length .715. From bottom of crimping band to tip is .341, seating depth is the difference: .374

MBC Length is .728. From bottom of crimping band to tip is .344, seating depth is the difference: .384

Stateline Bullets length is .770. From bottom of crimping band to tip is .451, seating depth is the difference: .319

So, to summarize, the amount of bullet in the case after seating, varies for each bullet: .339, .374, .384, and .319! The largest difference between these bullets is .065. Will that make a significant difference in velocity with the same load? No idea here!

I appears there is some difference in different makers molds, all advertised as Keith style bullets.

I once saw a picture of 13 different 429421 bullets all aligned together. They were all from Lyman molds so labeled, and all were slightly different. In 45, there were only 9 variations in the 454424.
If the bearing surface is similar just shoot them.

 

[243winxb]

Cast Bullet Data Base

BulletMatch

Bullet length changes with the alloy. Not a whole lot.

 

[243winxb]

Powder photos & some Countries of manufacture

AA #7 and the velocities I got were significantly higher than AA/Western Powders data for the same barrel length.

Hodgdon data should only be used with powder made at St. MARKS in Fl.

These powders made in many other countries, have different data. This includes AA/Accurate in 9,7, & 5 powder. Maybe others.

National Center for Forensic Science

 

[Yendor357]

I like it TinMan.
Keep the numbers coming.

 

[STORMINORMAN]

Hodgdon data should only be used with powder made at St. MARKS in Fl.

These powders made in many other countries, have different data. This includes AA/Accurate in 9,7, & 5 powder. Maybe others.

National Center for Forensic Science

Uh, since when...? The current Hodgdons websight load data mirrors the Western Powders Handloading Guide Edition 1 (2017) Printing Sept. 2020.

Nice link, BTW: THANKS!

Cheers!

 

[243winxb]

Uh, since when...? The current Hodgdons websight load data mirrors the Western Powders Handloading Guide Edition 1 (2017) Printing Sept. 2020.

Nice link, BTW: THANKS!

Cheers!

This turned out to be defective primes. The 357 mag load data, over the years, has changed with where the powder is manufactured.

Example- S&W M28-2, 357 Magnum, High Pressure, Locked Action, | The High Road

 

[TheTinMan]

Just a question: why so hot?

The DoubleTap 240gr LSWC is rated at 1,455 fps out of a 7.5" barrel. Buffalo Bore has several heavier & HOTTER loads, but what's the intended application? Jus' askin'?

Cheers!

“Why so hot?” is the question I am attempting to answer. Look at the “book” data from Western Powders. Current Hodgdon data is identical. The starting load of 14.7 grains was supposed to yield 1,180 fps but I measured 1,355. My goal is an accurate load for shooting water jugs and steel plates. That is part of why I chose AA #7 - lower velocity for the starting load.

 

[TheTinMan]

Hodgdon data should only be used with powder made at St. MARKS in Fl.

These powders made in many other countries, have different data. This includes AA/Accurate in 9,7, & 5 powder. Maybe others.

National Center for Forensic Science

Forgive my ignorance, but I have no idea what to make of that webpage.

The label on the powder container says “Made in US” and is dated 2009. I purchased it sometime between then and 2014. It looks and smells normal. I opened it for the first time for this load development.

The Western Powder data (version 8.0) is dated 2020. It matches current Hodgdon data exactly (see above). I have a 2002 Accurate Arms manual that shows a starting load of 15.8 grains at 1,341 fps for a 240 grain LSWC bullet; however, that is specifically for a Ruger RedHawk and my 14.7 grain load was faster than that )out of an 8” barrel compared to a 7-1/2” Ruger).

 

[SGT ROCK 11B]

… I have over 2,000 .240 grain lead “truncated cone bevel base” bullets that I bought from Bob Palermo at Penn bullets during the Obama shortages.

So that was eight years ago. How many .44s have you loaded in the last eight years? I was wondering how big your stash was.

 

[handejector]

My results out of 8” Dan Wesson, Winchester LRP, Penn 240 grain lead truncated cone/bevel base, COAL 1.558” (set by crimp groove)
14.7 grains @ 1,355 5-shot ES 39
15.0 grains @ 1,381 5-shot ES 27

LRP ?? Why a rifle primer?

When I go to Hodgdon’s data and input .44 Magnum rifle 240 grains, the only powder I have shown for a 240 grain LSWC is W-231 with a maximum velocity of 1,427 out of a 20” barrel. For some reason that seems like a silly powder to put in .44 Magnum, but that’s probably what I will try next.

231 seems like a very strange choice to me also. Are you sure it said that?